Firstly I noticed the original post of D500 v's D850, so lets compare on a practical underwater lets go diving mind set.

Bear in mind I use the D800 and will not part with it unless a camera knocks it out of the water, so much so it would be worth upgrading. I housed a D90 and wanted to house a D700 and was told not to bother so you kinda get where I'm coming from.!

D500 is cropped D850 is full frame, so collected choice is to change all your lenses etc like i did. Read not above. Never looked back big expense but worth every penny.

I noticed the Battery life on the D500 is shockingly bad to the tune of 600 shots thats two dives in my book, and one less battery change than needs be.

Would I be right to say that the D800 can flash sync to 1/320 where the D850 and D500 can't and will only go to 1/250.?

Other than that then its a choice of the two, if you've always had cropped then stay as you are.

You cannot compare image quality on any camera and say its the camera, as optically you will always get a better more optically pleasing image with a prime lens as to a zoom lens say 16-35mm.

To compare the full frame 16-35mm to a prime lens is just simply wrong as the two will not stand up together. I own both for the 800 and the 15mm fish eye is the tits compared to the 16-35mm zoom lens, but then I'm using that as more of a portaight lens under water, but this is about the two cameras and not about the lenses we all use underwater..

Firstly I noticed the original post of D500 v's D850, so lets compare on a practical underwater lets go diving mind set.

Bear in mind I use the D800 and will not part with it unless a camera knocks it out of the water, so much so it would be worth upgrading. I housed a D90 and wanted to house a D700 and was told not to bother so you kinda get where I'm coming from.!

D500 is cropped D850 is full frame, so collected choice is to change all your lenses etc like i did. Read not above. Never looked back big expense but worth every penny.

I noticed the Battery life on the D500 is shockingly bad to the tune of 600 shots thats two dives in my book, and one less battery change than needs be.

Would I be right to say that the D800 can flash sync to 1/320 where the D850 and D500 can't and will only go to 1/250.?

Other than that then its a choice of the two, if you've always had cropped then stay as you are.

You cannot compare image quality on any camera and say its the camera, as optically you will always get a better more optically pleasing image with a prime lens as to a zoom lens say 16-35mm.

To compare the full frame 16-35mm to a prime lens is just simply wrong as the two will not stand up together. I own both for the 800 and the 15mm fish eye is the tits compared to the 16-35mm zoom lens, but then I'm using that as more of a portaight lens under water, but this is about the two cameras and not about the lenses we all use underwater..

I said all that without swearing.!!!

Goose.

Can't say I agree with the battery argument. Just turn off the battery draining features and use an authentic battery and you'll get more than 600 shots.

Many users have reported a significant increase in battery life by turning off GPS etc.

In order to keep things fair you must do the same to the D850 If you did the same to the D850 i.e. turning off GPS etc. you would still fall short of 600 shots, compared to the D850, thats a lot of shots if your doing lets say a wedding or a horse riding event for example like i sometimes find myself doing. Even underwater it still holds true.

Its a bit like have two cars with the same fuel tank and spec {both cameras are not a million miles apart} but one is more efficient than the other, the smart money goes on the car that does the most miles for your money.!!

Is this a good basis to switch cameras maybe not. Is this a factor to weigh up when choosing a camera, yes because we are now on the verge of semi/pro cameras, but most pros I know do not use a D500 and need to keep shooting as long as possible, The D5 is the choice but thats a different kettle of fish and this post was about D500v' D850 and upgrading to either or.

In order to keep things fair you must do the same to the D850 If you did the same to the D850 i.e. turning off GPS etc. you would still fall short of 600 shots, compared to the D850, thats a lot of shots if your doing lets say a wedding or a horse riding event for example like i sometimes find myself doing. Even underwater it still holds true.

Its a bit like have two cars with the same fuel tank and spec {both cameras are not a million miles apart} but one is more efficient than the other, the smart money goes on the car that does the most miles for your money.!!

Is this a good basis to switch cameras maybe not. Is this a factor to weigh up when choosing a camera, yes because we are now on the verge of semi/pro cameras, but most pros I know do not use a D500 and need to keep shooting as long as possible, The D5 is the choice but thats a different kettle of fish and this post was about D500v' D850 and upgrading to either or.

Still havet swore.!

Goose

I'm fullt aware of like for like comparison and what that entails.

You're trying to compare a camera that's 3 times the price, so if you get 1800 vs 1200 shots on one than the other (going by reviews), then yes, you should expect more from a camera 3 times the price. I personally wouldn't expect the difference to be that much but hey ho.

Instead of opening a new thread with people missing the good posts in this one I'd thought I'd dig it up

Has anyone shot UW with both the D500 and the D850 by now? I've been really pleased with my D7000, but I'm tempted to spend some money before the next stock crash.

To give you an idea where I'm coming from I've only used 60mm lens with two INON wetlenses and mainly been shooting macro (I like super macro, but haven't been able to shoot it with my gear, but loved shooting Lady bugs on the last trip with my friends G7X and three wet lenses) in the traditional areas in Indonesia and Philippines. My dilhemma is I do want to be able to shoot wide angle as well and I really want to be able to make relatively big prints (base width of 100-120 cm).

Planned usage of the camera:

I believe most UW shots in the future for me will still be macro/super macro shots with the occasional wide angle dives/trips. Land wise I'd love to be able to do some proper astrophotography.

I'm sitting on the fence debating if it's more useful to get the D500 for it's magnification due to the sensor or get the D850 to be able to print big (in most cases I crop my image to get the exact composition I like). It's a lot of money either way, but as I plan to add new camera lenses, new wet lenses, a view finder etc. the difference in camera body cost isn't that much of an issues as I'll be eating porridge for a long time anyway . It's more about what would be the best camera for what I want to achieve. Maybe it's a case of having the cake and eating it? My fear is if I choose the D500 I will be limited with the printing (biggest concern) and doing wicked land based photography (secondary concern) and if I choose the D850 that I won't be able to get good shots of super macro. Maybe those even aren't valid fears?

Hi,
had the D300 and then a Oly OMD5 and now the D500.
For mostly macro, i would take it. Specially for supermacro, simply because of the DOF against any FX.
If you add some plus lenses or even combinate them, your field of raser sharpness will get so small....

If you pm me an email adress, i can send you pics, and you try what you can get out of them.

There will be allways a better, newer camera,
but the question is do we need it???
Or is sometimes the "old"one better for our Goal?

Regards,
Wolfgang

PS: can add you a pic from last weekend in front of a mountain hut.
5 am, lots of stars, a little bit of moon and 15 sec....

I have a D850, and with any luck can sell my D810 and Nauticam housing for it sometime soon. Anyway...

I am somewhat tempted to leave my D850 for land use and buy a D500 for underwater, but I am not sure I really want to have yet another camera body. I have really only shot super macro using a DX camera (D7000 in Lembeh), but I do have the 105, SMC, and multiplier. I am going to Sipadan and the surrounding islands (Mabul etc) later this year, so I need to figure out what I'm going to do soon.

I did not seriously consider the Nikon D500 when I made my decision to upgrade from the D800 to the D850. You can have almost all of the D500 "advantages", if you want them, by shooting the D850 in the DX crop. Or go midway between the two with the 1.2x crop. If you shot the D850 in the DX crop, you have virtually the same MP image, but you can only shoot at 7fps vs 10fps. But no underwater strobe can keep up with either of those frame rates except at tiny fractional power outputs. When you shoot DX with the D850, you see well beyond the DX area and can see fish and other animals that are just outside the DX area. Animals that may be about to enter you picture and which you might like to include by waiting momentarily for them to arrive. Or eliminate by shooting quickly. A fisheye or wide-angle zoom of the same focal length, when on the D850 in DX will exhibit virtually identical depth-of-field as it does on the D500 if you are using the same aperture and same dome port.

What you really get with the D850 for that extra money and slightly larger size vs the D500 is far more versatility. The versatility to choose when FX and 46MP will do a better job for you that DX and 20MP. More of Nikon's FX lenses cost more than their DX equivalents (eg. 40mm micro-nikkor vs 60mm micro-nikkor or 85mm micro-nikkor vs 105mm micro-nikkor) and it is likely that you get more for that additional money in things like build quality which affects how long the lens will perform at top specs. Carrying this line of thought further - Alex in his review of the new Nikon 8-15mm fisheye zoom wrote that some of his mates were calling it the "posh toki". But Adam in his write up also mentioned that he and many others he knew had had at least one of their Tokina 10-17mm lenses fall apart or fail in other ways.

You always pay for what you get. But you don't alway get what you pay for. Especially when you go the cheap route. And in the Nikon system, all you have to do is look at the DX system as a whole, vs the FX system, and you can see where Nikon is putting their money and effort. That is why I went with the D850.

agree with you the DOF in wide angle.
But is it the same in macro and supermacro?
And this is what Vigfus wants.
Can you shoot a pic in FX and in DX mode and show us a croop of some fine structure?
No question that a FX system is fine. And i use FX macro lenses to get just the center, there they are best.
The question is only if it is needed...
Regards,
Wolfgang

I have both the D500 and D850, and have dived with both (in Dec. in Anilao).

I have shot DX for years, so the D500 upgrade (from D7000/7100/7200 - yes, shot them all) was an obvious one for me. I added the D850 late last year because I wanted to see what shooting FX was like underwater. The D850 for macro proved to be a really good option (shot with both the 60 and 105), and the primary advantage was the autofocus speed. I have Nauticam housings for both.

However, I still prefer the D500 for wide angle (Tokina 10-17 and mini zen dome) because there is still not a cost effective/travel friendly W/A solution for the D850. The two best options right now are the Nauticam WACP (expensive and very bulky) or a converted Nikon RS 13mm (great option, but also expensive).

Based on what I've experienced - if I wanted one camera for both macro & W/A, I would pick the D500. The D850 has a ton of potential, but I still need to find a W/A solution that works well, and is reasonably affordable.

I feel like if you somehow made me choose between a the D500 with a Nauticam housing vs a D850 with the Ikelite housing I would pick the D500 because of the housing alone. I would basically ignore everything else.

I have been shooting the D500 since it was released mainly because I have a collection of DX lenses left over from earlier D7000 and D90 and simply the cost. I mainly shoot Fisheye's and I am of the opinion that DX camera perform better than FX in this instance especially when you use the Nikon 10.5mm. The D500 ticks all the boxes which I want it to do at a price which much lower than the FX range.

I use the following on my D500:

Nikon 10.5mm

Tokina 10-17mm

Tokina 11-16mm

Nikon 60mm

Tokina 100mm

I went with the Tokina 100mm as I dont shoot much macro and the Tokina 100mm is a great lens and is half the price of the Nikon 105mm. It does the job for me.

Regarding the battery life of the D500, once changed to the newer nikon battery EN-EL15 Li-ion 20 and turning the camera onto flight mode I was able to get well over 1200 shots for stills. If video was used ther battery life is reduced greatly but I think that is the same for the D850. The D500 has excellent video and custom WB of the fly is great.

I can't comment on the D850 as I have never used one but at the end of the day I think it comes down to you sitting down with your budget and seeing what the best bang for buck. Going for a housing which is made of clear plastic isnt one of them either.

I guess i have decided to house my D850. I am not excited at all on the WACP due to price or size, and not thrilled about a 230mm dome either. I will likely end up using my Sigma 15mm FE and Zen 170mm dome for most wide angle stuff and the 16-35/4 and 8.5" dome with some crop planned to clean up the corners, or just shoot it in DX mode...I generally don't like cropping, but the D850 file size will leave plenty of room for doing it.

Anyway, I fear I will end up buying the WACP anyway, but I realllly don't want to.

All this stuff sometimes makes me wonder why I didn't just keep shooting the RX100